Comments on: All In The Family

By: Emmy

Emmy — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 22:40:38 +0000

Great thought provoking post about how we decide what is and is not taboo. Everyone has their personal kink, but that doesn't mean everything outside of it is taboo per say.

Reminds me a bit of the anthropology class discussion I had in college where a group of students could not get over their own personal objects to a behavior in this other culture. To them it was wrong, and someone needed to, in essence, fix it. We spent a lot of time discussing why it's wrong – like you did – who does it hurt, when would that create a dangerous situation, is it simply not a personal preference, etc. It was a good demonstration of how people cannot always separate right and wrong from their personal preferences.

By: Britni TheVadgeWig

Britni TheVadgeWig — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 19:32:22 +0000

Sa, its interesting to know that nature seems to support the phenomenon.

Chris, I don't see your point regarding the rape case. All rape cases come down to he said/she said regardless of who is involved. And whether its consensual or not, there is always going to be one party cliaming it was a consensual act.

Alana, I see your point regarding age play, but for me, its involving (again) two consenting adults and therefore is in no way pedophilia. And it doesn't mean the "adult" in the exchange actually *wants* to fuck a child. Its more the taboo and wrongness of the interaction that's hot than the thought of fucking a kid.

By: mrs. m

mrs. m — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 18:51:51 +0000

very thought-provoking.

By: alana

alana — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 16:39:11 +0000

The BBC did a show about incest featuring different couples that was super interesting. I do think first family relations should be child-free, but beyond that I don’t really care. We don’t monitor other genetic abnormalities and stop people from having relations because of them so I’m not sure that’s a valid reason in and of itself to demonize incest. I can’t be the only one who thinks the first-cousin disgust vs. the second-cousin acceptance is a bit hypocritical.

Oh and Chris, I’m pretty sure men who rape women everywhere claim it was consensual. That’s pretty much the first line out of the rapist handbook.

On another note, age play makes me uncomfortable because there’s a creepy pedophilia feeling I get from it. But that’s just me.

By: eva

eva — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:28:39 +0000

I'm glad I don't fancy my brother he he. Uggh.

I remember seeing these documentaries about bestiality – some people actually fall in love with animals. There was this guy who loved his horse and wanted to -or already had- married it. The horse seemed happy enough. I gave it some thought, and in the end figured out that I thought bestiality was ok as long as there was a mutual consent. But obviously, how can we tell, and is it really mutual if the person owns the animal and the animal just obeys to whatever it is asked to do because that is what it has been taught.. whaaahh.. I also remember reading in girl's magazines about girls who wondered if it was ok for them to put food-stuff on their cunt and have their dog lick it off. The answer was always a big "NO". I personally don't see any harm in doing it- not that I see the attraction in doing it either

By: Chris Croy

Chris Croy — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 06:48:07 +0000

There are various rational justifications for incest laws.

Option A: Incest is not a truly victimless crime because the children that result are typically genetically mutilated. You're harming your children and putting an extra burden on the state if the government is forced to care for your offspring.

The trouble with any genetic justification for incest laws is consistency. If we prosecute an uncle-niece pairing because of the genetic risk, shouldn't we prosecute women who smoke and binge drink during their prengancy? Shouldn't we make it illegal for people with certain genetic disorders, such as Huntington's Disease, to have children at all? If one party is sterile, shouldn't it then be legal? If genetic risk is the only justification, then shouldn't it just be vag that's illegal? These aren't rhetorical questions.

Option B: The possibility of a healthy relationship is miniscule versus the damage legalization would do to efforts to prosecute incestuous sexual abuse/assault. You work with women abusive relationships, I'm sure you can imagine how hard it would be for an 18 year old senior in high school to bring rape charges against her father. What do you do when he says "I didn't put any pressure on her, she just wanted to suck my dick"?

By: Sa

Sa — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 05:19:45 +0000

Well, I have a great many thoughts on this topic.
My mother as a zoologist studied incest in monkeys and found out that "nature" had organized quite a lot of barriers to prevent marmoset monkeys from ever committing incest-smell, taste, a way of stamping an entire family with a scent that makes them immediately identifiable-but that if you separated a family member from the group for a year, these markers would disappear and the tabou would be removed.
Interestingly, the only primates who commit incest knowingly are chimpanzees (who also commit rape as a social punishment and beat up members of their group, and thus are considered to be closest to us).
If you look at royal families in the past, when intermarriages were the norm, you can see why inbreeding and incest are a bad choice. On a non-biological level, I make a clear difference between cousins, siblings and parent-child interactions. Parent-child interactions are just wrong in my eyes, because a child's relationship to its parents'sexuality is extremely complex and even if this child is adult, some lines have to remain uncrossed, for social and psychological reasons. I'll stop rambling now!